I don't agree at all. I think he was able to give a clear and accurate analysis of why lisp failed, despite liking the language so much. He also wrote critica

I don't agree at all. I think he was able to give a clear and accurate analysis of why lisp failed, despite liking the language so much. He also wrote critical responses to his own essay under a pseudonym, with a back and forth that is quite funny and demonstrates the ability to understand both sides of the argument. In "Worse is better" he explicitly mentions how that approach favors real-world application, because it is so simple it is fast and is "good enough" and then can be moved to 90% of the right thing. All of this is to say: I don't agree with you, but I also agree with you and I suspect he would as well, with qualifications. And he would probably also disagree with you.